Some people think that libraries are a waste of money and resource and computers can largely replace them. Discuss both the view

The discussion about whether or not libraries can be replaced with computers in today’s complex society raises a thorny question.

Although

it can be argued that libraries are a waste of money, I strongly believe that replacing a large number of books with computers require more capital than libraries. There are several reasons why the resources allocated for libraries should not be considered as a waste of money.

First

and foremost, there exist lots of ancient libraries in the world which contains a myriad of documents

such

as encyclopedias, historical documents and books that are very important to the researchers. It would appear that the documents I mentioned above may contain valuable information and facts from centuries ought to securely protect.

For example

, university researchers all over the world, need to get permission from libraries in order to access them and collect important information to pass for future generations. Another important reason could be thought that

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

replacing libraries with computers require more money and resources.

First

of all, thousands of terabytes of virtual space are required to transfer paper books to the electronic form and store them in it as well as security specialists ought to hired to protect them from cyberattacks and creating a back-up of books for risk of deletion. Apart from these, transferring old paper books which do not have an electronic version require more workers to make new version capable for computers. In conclusion, my view is that it must be waste of resources and fund for governments to largely replace libraries with computers, but I would like to see an electronic version of newly released books in each libraries system.